Appearing at the College Convention in Concord, N.H., the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania faced boos and hisses as he launched familiar defenses of his positions on same-sex marriage, federal drug laws and Judeo-Christian values. When his answers failed to persuade the crowd, he was forced to resort to Socratic method — a tactic that frustrated some in the audience and led to shouts that he was avoiding the questions.

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?” Santorum asked a young woman grilling him on marriage equality, comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy.

When she responded that his question was “irrelevant,” Santorum replied, “You know, it’s important, if we’re going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought, that we employ reason.” There were audible groans from the audience.

“I always try to give kids the opportunity,” Santorum explained to several reporters as he walked away from the event. “I’m trying to. I sort of always look, when you’re with kids, to try to engage them and try to get them thinking about why they’re thinking the way they’re thinking.”

Santorum tried his best to control his environment, asking at his town hall meetings that state residents get priority in asking questions.

But in New Hampshire, where countless out-of-staters, libertarian-minded voters and one-issue advocates descend for a week of campaign theater, the environment is proving utterly difficult to control. On Wednesday, Mitt Romney learned that the hard way when the first questioner at a town hall event meant to showcase his endorsement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was an Occupy Manchester protester demanding that he revamp his proclamation that “corporations are people.” Newt Gingrich, likewise, found himself in the middle of the circus when, at his first stop in New Hampshire, he was pressed on three separate occasions to acknowledge that the country’s drug laws were draconian. He didn’t and ended up insisting that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been “rather more violent” than today’s feds.

Santorum, however, has seemed to bring out the best of the rabble-rousers. A well-known Christian conservative, his politics have proved an odd fit for the Granite State. Earlier in the day, his lunch at a diner in Tilton was interrupted by Occupy protesters. At the College Convention, his answers repeatedly produced hisses and hollers. Once finished, the attendees could hardly wait to unload, homing in on a statement he had made in Sioux City, Iowa, in which he said he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

“You can say that stuff in Iowa where it’s 84 percent Caucasian,” said LaCarte Lewis, a student at Northshore Technical Community College in Greensburg, La., who had trouble staying in her seat during the event because she so badly wanted to press Santorum on the issue. “How can you say that? Why would you say that? And you want our votes? He sucks. He really sucks.”

Fannie Buckley, 39, was equally enraged, not just with the Santorum’s Sioux City remarks, but his avoidance of the question entirely.

“I work 18 hours a week, I go to college, and I don’t get food stamps or government aid,” Buckley said. “We all were in a group together, a majority of black people were bunched together on the side. And he avoided us.”

Some questions, however, are simply unavoidable. The group Students for Sensible Drug Policy, for instance, has been sending hordes of individuals to most campaign stops (including the one where Gingrich was pressed on the founding fathers’ weed habits). And if they don’t get their question asked, they are perfectly comfortable resorting to mischief. As Santorum left Thursday afternoon’s event, for example, he was asked by one attendee to sign a yard sign for his ailing father. A seemingly sentimental request turned into a confrontational moment, when the attendee demanded that, as president, Santorum end federal drug policies that were “ruining families.” The candidate stepped quickly into his car.

“No candidate except Ron Paul will talk about this on his own,” explained Andrew Livingston, 21, a member of the organization, not the culprit behind the question. “So you need to force the issue.”

And therein lies the essence of the New Hampshire primary. Livingston can’t vote. He’s from New Jersey. Nor could Buckley or Lewis, who were two of 73 students attending from Louisiana. The event featured at least nine kids from the Waterbury, Conn., area as well, with one, Isabella, unable to ask Santorum, “Why should we vote for you?” Twelve years of age, Isabella can’t vote for him. It is, every four years, Disneyland for political junkies from across the country.

At one point Santorum was asked about a molten salt reactor in China by a Democratic presidential candidate named Bob Greene. Before he even took to the dais, another presidential candidate, Robert David Steele of the Reform Party, was telling attendees that if they just fact-checked everyone else, he would be a top-three candidate (the other two being Buddy Roemer and Ron Paul). After the event, a man named Michael J. Meehan was handing out business cards that read: “I Just Met The Next President Of The United States. … Goliath Never Saw Us Coming.”

Other, more mainstream candidates, are slated to attend the College Convention. But, perhaps sensing the inherent chaos in the event, organizers are expecting dropouts.

“All have from time to time confirmed,” said Dr. Jim Walsh, co-director of College Convention. “Paul is not likely to make his appearance tomorrow … Mr. Romney? Mr. Romney hasn’t answered our calls.”

Most Americans spend dozens, if not hundreds, of hours attempting, not always successfully, to do their tax returns. We spend almost $30 billion paying accountants to fill out the complicated forms, and by some estimates we devote $110 billion of our own labor just keeping track of all the necessary records and paperwork. Americans pay about 85 percent of the taxes they owe, better than in most countries, but the shortfall is still a drain on the Treasury (and the rich seem to find a way to avoid taxes legally). Is this costly, demoralizing struggle between the IRS and the rest of us really necessary?

The short answer is no. There is a way to relieve almost all Americans of the annual April 15 nightmare. What’s more, it’s a necessary first step toward a plan to cut the looming federal deficit. The time is right for thoroughgoing tax reform—a true clean slate—that will bring in more revenue while giving the public a greater sense of fairness. The reforms we propose will even allow most people to take home more pay than they do now.

The place to start is to cut almost everyone’s payroll and income taxes by half. Yes, you read that right. Cut most tax rates, which now run from 10 to 39 percent, by half. All individual taxes would be collected through company withholding taxes on compensation (salary, bonus, deferred payments, etc.) and investment income (dividends, interest, capital gains, rents) to individuals. The very rich—those making more than $2 million a year—would still pay a top tax rate of 30 percent on earned income. The rate on investment income would be 15 percent. The result: individuals would not have to file tax returns, most Americans would take home more pay than they do now, the tax base would be broadened, and the AMT—the alternative minimum tax, which sweeps up more taxpayers every year—would be eliminated.

Too good to be true? There’s no free lunch. The revenue lost to the government—roughly half of all personal federal taxes—has to come from someplace else. The best fix is to eliminate all deductions and exemptions for individual taxpayers—all those tax breaks that were intended to promote economic activity or serve worthy social goals but have ended up creating myriad unfair outcomes. It’s true that the wealthiest 1 percent currently pays about 18 percent of all taxes. Still, thanks to clever tax dodges, the top 400 income earners pay an average tax rate of 16.6 percent; megabillionaire Warren Buffett notes that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

Deductions are costly to the federal Treasury—siphoning off between a fifth and a quarter of all revenue. Wipe them out and we will have restored a significant percentage of the money lost by cutting income-tax rates. Where does the rest come from? A 12 percent tax on consumer goods, collected in increments as they are produced and sold, would raise $600 billion, more than closing the gap.

Some will argue that a consumption tax would raise prices, maybe even unleash inflation, and hurt the economy. Many economists, however, believe that a modest value-added tax (VAT) can actually boost the economy in the long run. It encourages saving and investing over consumption and debt—the twin habits that helped push the country into the Great Recession of 2008. Though savings rates are going up, we are still “unwinding” our personal debts and have a way to go. We can put more money in people’s pockets by lowering income taxes but encourage saving and investment with a consumption tax.

This basic version of the Clean Slate Plan is revenue-neutral—it neither raises nor lowers the total amount of taxes flowing into the Treasury—but it can be adjusted to deal with changing economic conditions. (Precise predictions are impossible because changing tax rates can alter economic behavior in ways that are hard to predict.) If the government wants to give the economy a quick boost in a downturn, the VAT rates can be lowered. But if we need to raise revenue (and over the long run, we surely do), they can be adjusted upward.

This is where the Clean Slate Plan really promises to do some good for the country and for the future of our children and grandchildren. For some time, Americans have refused to pay for the services they get from government. Last year we paid federal taxes amounting to about 15 percent of the nation’s economy. But the government spent or paid out in benefits close to 25 percent of GDP. We had to borrow the difference. The total federal debt keeps growing. It’s about half the size of the economy now, high though not horrendous by historical standards. But as the baby boomers age and the costs of caring for them go up, our debt will very shortly mushroom to the sort of levels seen in Greece.

Will there be rioting in the streets as we slash benefits? Or will we inflate our way out like some banana republic, impoverishing people on fixed incomes? Clearly we have to do something about the federal deficit. We might be able to grow our way out—but very few economists believe this. Almost everyone, even politicians in moments of off-the-record candor, agree that we’ll have to cut spending and raise taxes, probably in equal measure. There will have to be a compromise: Democrats will have to bend on their unwillingness to cut spending, and Republicans will have to give on their refusal to increase taxes. Setting the VAT at 15 percent rather than 12 percent, for instance, would produce an extra $150 billion or so a year in revenue. The beauty of the Clean Slate is that it offers a simple way to boost revenue that is fair, open, and progressive—and gets the IRS out of people’s lives.

The rich will not be soaked, but they may actually have to pay higher tax rates than their secretaries; the special interests will squawk and protest. There may have to be some adjustments—the poor and the very old may need at least partial reimbursement for the VAT they pay, and possibly there should be pretax exemptions for individual savings, like the 401(k). Charitable deductions could be handled the same way. Of course, if exceptions are made for savings plans and charity, the tax rates will have to be adjusted upward—marginal income-tax rates might be cut by a third, instead of half. But such exceptions should be kept to a minimum in order to create a truly clean slate.

Obama has been very publicly waging his popular War on Bank Bonuses (Remember that time Obama called bank bonuses “obscene” and everyone flipped out? And then he bashed huge bonuses as “the height of irresponsibility”.

And said bad things about bonuses last week in his SOTU.) And it seems to have worked, at least superficially. Investment banks are cutting back on bonuses—including Goldman, who are giving sweet mortgages to their employees in lieu of bonuses.

But now: Blankfein’s looking to net a cool $100 million for riding his vampire squid to record profits last year—way more than his previous record take of $67 million in 2007. And this after he snubbed Obama back in December due to dubious “inclement weather.”

Goldman’s strategy must be to give Blankfein enough money to build a subterranean Obama-proof bomb shelter, stock it with provisions and plasma screens, lock the big doors and emerge only when the world is again made safe for investment bankers (~2014).

The president said that Republicans are eroding cooperation by telling constituents he is “doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

For their part, the Republicans pressed Obama on a series of issues ranging from the economy to health care, saying he and congressional Democrats had ignored their ideas.

Obama said he would listen seriously to some of the Republican proposals and insisted that others had, in fact, been incorporated into Democratic measures. But, he also pushed back on other GOP proposals, citing his reasons for opposing them.

Obama used the health care debate — which he described as “bitter and contentious” — to underline the difficulties in changing the “tone” of the debate in Washington.

“It’s not just on your side, by the way,” he said. “It’s on our side as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.”

Obama said that the “component parts” of the health care package were similar to those that were advocated last year by former Republican Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker and Robert Dole, as well as onetime Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and “similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.”

“You may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom — and certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much — but that’s not a radical bunch,” Obama said. “But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.”

“If the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” he said. “I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, ‘This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.’ ”

Georgia Rep. Tom Price countered by asking, “What should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we’ve offered nothing?”

Obama said Republicans, on health care, needed to put on the table specific ideas that would work. “It can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we’re going to be selling the American people a bill of goods,” he said.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, pressed Obama to commit to an across-the-board tax cut, a proposal which Obama met with skepticism: “If you’re calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we’re somehow going to balance our budget, I’m going to want to take a look at your math and see how that that works.”

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz called out Obama on his failure to make good on the promises of transparency in shaping the health care legislation. “You stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t,” Chaffetz said. “I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.”

Obama said the “overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings,” but acknowledged the closed-door meetings after the committee process was finished and said, “I think it’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.”

Obama spoke during an afternoon celebration of his historic election, featuring musicians led by Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce as well as famous actors, all entertaining an estimated half-million people on the National Mall with songs and readings aimed at capturing the gravity of the moment.

Obama, the first African-American to be elected president, looked out at the sea of people and told them, “What gives me hope is what I see when I look out across this mall. For in these monuments are chiseled those unlikely stories that affirm our unyielding faith _ a faith that anything is possible in America.”

He gazed fleetingly at the Washington Monument in the distance. “Rising before us stands a memorial to a man who led a small band of farmers and shopkeepers in revolution against the army of an empire, all for the sake of an idea,” he said.

He looked at the World War II memorial down the mall, “a tribute to a generation that withstood war and depression, men and women like my grandparents who toiled on bomber assembly lines and marched across Europe to free the world from tyranny’s grasp.”

And just before him, he saw the reflecting pool, “a pool that still reflects the dream of a King, and the glory of a people who marched and bled so that their children might be judged by their character’s content.”

Finally, Lincoln — “watching over the union he saved,” Obama said, “sits the man who in so many ways made this day possible.”

Remember their struggles, Obama urged the crowd, and remember the “thread that binds us together in common effort, that runs through every memorial on this mall,” and offers a lesson that “there is no obstacle that can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.”

Washington was crackling with energy on Sunday. The crowd chanted “O-bam-a” after his speech, and the echoes were audible several blocks away. The people sang along with Pete Seeger, Springsteen and others in a rousing chorus of “This Land is Your Land.”

Obama, staying with his family at Blair House across from the White House, began his day at Arlington National Cemetery’s Tomb of the Unknowns, where he and Vice President-elect Joseph Biden laid a wreath.

Obama then headed to the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, one of the city’s most historic African-American churches. Organized 170 years ago, it has been an important player in the city’s cultural and religious life.

Hundreds were packed into the sanctuary when Obama, his wife Michelle, their two daughters and Marian Robinson, Obama’s mother-in-law, entered and took seats in the second row, near the altar. “God has prepared you and placed you,” Senior Pastor Derrick Harkins said. “God will not forsake you,” he said. “Go forward in prayerfulness and faithfulness.”

He spoke of those who turned away from what he called the “flowery bed of ease” to champion justice _ civil rights icon Rosa Parks; Nazi resistance hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer and King, whose 80th birthday is being celebrated Monday.

“Perhaps, just perhaps, you are where you are for just such a time,” Harkins said.

Sunday afternoon, Obama joined the throng at the Lincoln Memorial, site of the August 28, 1963 “March on Washington” that featured King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

The Obamas and the Bidens sat in a glass-enclosed area to the left of the faux marble stage, and heard actor Denzel Washington open the program by noting that “we are inspired by the man we have elected to be the 44th president of the United States of America.”

Out came Springsteen, backed by a predominantly African-American choir, and they sang “The Rising,” his ode to America’s efforts to deal with the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Other readings and songs followed, as Queen Latifah recalled how Marian Anderson sang there on Easter Sunday in 1939 after the Daughters of the American Revolution refused her permission to sing before an integrated audience at nearby Constitution Hall.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson observed that “Martin Luther King did not live to see his dream fulfilled. His dream is being realized by all of us being here today.” Next came Bono of rock band U2, who said that on Tuesday, “that dream comes to pass.” Beyonce ended the two-hour event by leading everyone in “America the Beautiful.”

The crowd had gathered early on a cloudy day when temperatures stayed in the 30s, but nothing seemed to bother them.

Geoff Keough and Lauren Gaudio dressed for the occasion in red, white and blue floral leis, American flag eye masks, and for Keough, a spangled Uncle Sam top hat. They brought hot coffee.

Dawn Arrington was not happy about the long security lines, but figured it was worth the wait. “I think it’s a trial run for Tuesday,” she said of the concert and its logistical aggravations. “How could we not make it?”

City residents were grateful for Obama’s Sunday schedule. Local resident Faye Roberson said many in the capital, particularly those living in its most poverty-stricken neighborhoods, shared key elements of Obama’s biography.

“Obama can understand people trying to feed their families,” said Roberson, who has lived here for 40 years.

Sue Williams of nearby Alexandria, Va. agreed. The federal employee was heading for the Mall with her sister and parents, who had come from Massachusetts for the inauguration. They were covered in a flurry of Obama pins, hats and other paraphernalia.

“Obama can help elevate the credibility of this country around the world,” Williams said. “There’s an underlying sense of hope and optimism that I’ve never seen before.”

(Erika Bolstad and Jack Chang contributed to this story)

The new Illinois senator is expected to be sworn into office later this week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois made the announcement in a joint statement Monday, saying Burris “is now the senator-designate from Illinois and, as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a senator-elect.”

Burris, in turn, called himself honored and humbled to be the state’s newest senator. “I’m thankful for the opportunity to serve,” he said at a news conference in Chicago. “I recognize that my appointment triggered a challenging time for many.”

The development prevented the impasse that has plagued Democrats from dragging on into Obama’s inauguration festivities, and it capped a gradual retreat by the Senate’s top Democrats.

They had initially tried to dissuade Blagojevich, who faces criminal charges, from making an appointment and suggested that his pick would not be seated. Last week, Burris’ credentials were rejected in a circus-like atmosphere that tarnished the opening day festivities of the new Congress.

But Reid and Durbin said they now anticipate that Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, will be seated this week, barring objections from Republicans.

They made the announcement after Burris lawyers delivered to the Capitol documents certifying his appointment to Obama’s seat, and the secretary of the Senate determined that the paperwork met Senate requirements.

Reid and Durbin said they were satisfied both with the documents and with Burris’ testimony before the Illinois House impeachment panel that he did nothing wrong.

Even though Burris does not stand accused of wrongdoing, Senate Democrats rejected Burris last week, only to quickly backpedal after Obama himself privately weighed in and senators fretted that the situation was diverting their focus at a critical time.

In the House, the Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing on the program in advance of legislation offered by committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would place tough new restrictions on recipients of the money and require spending to reduce mortgage foreclosures.

The legislation is scheduled to reach the floor of the House on Wednesday, with a vote set for Thursday.

That flurry of activity comes in the wake of President George W. Bush’s decision Monday to act on Obama’s behalf and ask Congress for access to the remaining $350 billion of the money Congress authorized to rescue the nation’s financial sector.

The request reached Congress as lawmakers and Obama also were assembling a spending and tax-cutting stimulus package of $800 billion, or possibly more.

“It is clear that the financial system, although improved from where it was in September, is still fragile,” Obama said Monday.

Bush’s notification set a 15-day deadline for Congress to disapprove of the request. The Bush administration’s handling of the money has met bipartisan criticism in the House and Senate. Lawmakers have complained that the Treasury Department’s use of the money has been muddled and misleading, that recipients of the funds have faced little accountability and that the program has done nothing to reduce home foreclosures.

If the Senate rejects a motion to disapprove the funds, it would pave the way for Obama to begin dispensing the money about a week after he assumes office Jan. 20.

Congressional Democrats said they hoped Obama’s desire to place greater restrictions on the money and broaden its goals to loosen more credit would build support among otherwise skeptical lawmakers. The House tentatively scheduled a vote for next week. If both chambers refuse to release the money, it would be up to Obama to issue a veto — a dramatic first act by a new president — in hopes that Congress would not override him.

The request by the Bush White House made it clear that the money was to be used by the incoming Obama administration. It directed lawmakers to a letter Monday from top Obama economic adviser Larry Summers that vowed to make significant changes in the way the program is administered.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was encouraged by Obama’s efforts to add more conditions and to require greater accountability for the use of the money. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voiced skepticism but left open the possibility that he could be persuaded.

“I would be hard-pressed to support additional funding for the TARP without sufficient assurances this money will not be wasted, misspent or simply used for more industry-specific bailouts,” McConnell said.

Summers’ letter, however, was not as detailed as the legislation proposed in the House by Frank. That bill would set new conditions on the institutions that receive the money, requiring limits on executive pay and an end to owning or leasing private jets. It also would require spending at least $40 billion from the fund on foreclosure mitigation.

Financial services industry lobbyists said they opposed a provision in Frank’s bill that would allow the Treasury Department to apply executive pay restrictions to banks that already have received government money.

Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Financial Services Roundtable, said the group would like to see Congress’ concerns addressed without the retroactive provision. The Roundtable represents 100 of the largest banks and insurance companies, including such government fund recipients as Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Some lobbyists hoped Summers’ letter would reassure lawmakers and make legislation such as Frank’s less likely to pass. Summers’ letter doesn’t address the question of retroactive limits on executive pay.

At the same time, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a directive Monday asking banks and other financial institutions to track how the federal money or guarantees they received helped them boost “prudent lending” and efforts to help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosures.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo, Chris Rugaber and Marcy Gordon contributed to this report.

By turns wistful, aggressive and joking in his final news conference, Bush covered a huge range of topics in summing up his eight years in the White House — the latest in a recent string of efforts to have his say before historians have theirs.

Then the White House said he would do it again Thursday night in a final address to the nation.

Reaching back to his first day in office, he recalled walking into the White House and having “a moment” when he felt all the responsibilities of the job landing on his shoulders.

Barack Obama will feel that next week, he said, his tone gently understanding. [More...]

Indeed, he was full of supportive words for Obama — the nation’s first black president — and talked of being deeply affected while watching people say on television that they never thought they would see such a day, many with “tears streaming down their cheeks when they said it.”

“President-elect Obama’s election does speak volumes about how far this country has come when it comes to racial relations,” Bush said, seeming almost awe-struck.

He brushed off any suggestion that he’d found the job of president too burdensome — or that Obama would find it so. “It’s just pathetic, isn’t it, self-pity?” he said. “And I don’t believe that President-elect Obama will be full of self-pity.”

At the same time, Bush showed his skin is not so thick as all that. “Sometimes the biggest disappointments will come from your so-called friends,” he advised Obama. Bush’s former press secretary, Scott McClellan, released a scathing tell-all book last year that still stings around the West Wing.

Asked one last time by reporters about the major controversies of his presidency, Bush had a ready answer for each:

• On the dismal economy he leaves behind for Obama, Bush said, “I inherited a recession, I’m ending on a recession. In the meantime, there were 52 months of uninterrupted job growth.” The 2001 recession began in March, two months into his presidency, but economists agree the seeds were sown long before.

Bush also defended himself against economic attacks from his own party on the huge government bailout of Wall Street financial firms. He said, his voice rising, “If you were sitting there and heard that the depression could be greater than the Great Depression, I hope you would act, too, which I did.”

• On the five-year-old Iraq war, the issue that will define his presidency, Bush said history will judge his actions but it is a fact that violence diminished and everyday life became more stable after his decision in 2007 to send an additional 30,000 American troops into the fight.

• He vigorously took issue with critics of the federal response to Katrina, the hurricane that devastated New Orleans. Gesturing and speaking with feeling, he said, “Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed,” he said. “Has the reconstruction been perfect? No. Have things happened fairly quickly? Absolutely.”

• The president claimed progress toward peace in the Middle East, though any hopes for an accord soon have been dashed by, among other things, a bruising offensive by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

• Most angrily, Bush dismissed “some of the elite” who say he has damaged America’s image around the world. “No question, parts of Europe have said that we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are few countries,” he said.

The president’s actions after the Sept. 11 attacks — such as establishing the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, approving tough interrogation methods that some say amount to torture and instituting information-gathering efforts at home decried by civil rights groups — were compounded by global outrage at the 2003 invasion of Iraq, particularly later when the alleged weapons of mass destruction that were the main justification for war turned out not to exist.

“In terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn’t worry about popularity,” he said.

Asked about mistakes, Bush cited a few that he preferred to term “disappointments” — not finding those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the abuses committed by members of the U.S. military at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq, giving a speech two months after the start of the Iraq war under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier, Congress’ failure to pass free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and the negative tone in Washington that belied his 2000 campaign promise to be a “uniter not a divider.”

But he offered no evidence he takes personal responsibility for any of those failures. The only two areas where he seemed to acknowledge that errors in judgment had been his were his penchant for cowboy rhetoric, such as saying “Bring ‘em on!” to foes in Iraq, and his decision to pursue partial privatization of Social Security immediately after his 2004 re-election.

He said arguing for immigration reform would have been a better use of the political capital he earned through his victory, in part because lawmakers were not yet convinced that Social Security presented an imminent crisis. Over two years of intensive efforts, Bush achieved reform in neither area.

Bush, who watched a Republican drubbing last fall, gave his party advice about how to rise from the ashes. Referring back to the divisive immigration debate, in which conservatives blocked broad changes and raised concern that illegal immigrants would be given amnesty, Bush said the image of his party that resulted was “Republicans don’t like immigrants.”

“This party will come back. But the party’s message has got to be that different points of view are included in the party,” he said.

Bush began what he termed “the ultimate exit interview” Monday with a lengthy and gracious thank-you to his core of usual reporters, calling many by name and saying he respects their work even if he often dislikes the product.

Looking to his first day out of office, Bush appeared somewhat flummoxed but also relieved at the prospect of waking up at his Texas ranch next Wednesday with, by his own admission, little idea what to do beyond bringing coffee to his wife.

Monday’s news conference offered only one bit of news, and — in these times when Bush has seemed to fade from office a little more each day — even that was overtaken by events.

He said he would ask Congress to release the remaining $350 billion in Wall Street bailout money if Obama wants him to — but that Obama had not yet asked. A mere two hours later, Obama had made his request to Bush, and the White House said the president had agreed.

Bush’s move sets the stage for Obama to get swift access to the $350 billion and the opportunity to overhaul the much-criticized rescue package after taking office next Tuesday. Obama said that it would be “irresponsible … to enter into the administration without any potential ammunition should there be some sort of emergency or weakening of the financial system.”

Congress, where the use of the money has met stiff bipartisan skepticism, has 15 days to vote to reject the request. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was considering holding a vote on a resolution of disapproval as early as Thursday in hopes it would be defeated, thus making the funds available about a week after Obama inherits one of the worst financial crises in U.S. history.

“It is clear that the financial system, although improved from where it was in September, is still frail,” Obama said, a few hours after seeking Bush’s help in requesting the money.

Several officials said the president-elect intends to visit the Capitol on Tuesday to attend a weekly closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats. The meetings often vary widely in topics to be discussed, although it seemed likely Obama would make the case for the bailout funds if the subject came up.

Separately, a Republican official said Obama was dispatching top aides to meet with the Senate GOP rank and file as early as Wednesday to try to win as many GOP votes as possible.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the events.

If Congress goes along, Obama would have a huge cache of bailout money at his disposal — and much more to come in the approximately $800 billion economic stimulus bill that Democratic congressional leaders promise to finish by mid-February. Congress also is racing to have ready for Obama a $35 billion health insurance program for children.

Obama acted quickly, sending prompt reassurances to congressional leaders that the money would aim to help free credit for small businesses and consumers and reduce the rising number of foreclosures. Separately, Larry Summers, Obama’s choice for National Economic Council director, said the new president intends to also impose tougher restrictions and oversight on how the money is spent.

“Many of us have been disappointed with the absence of clarity, the lack of transparency, the failure to track how the money’s been spent and the failure to take bold action,” Obama said.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Summers said an Obama administration would “launch sweeping efforts to address the foreclosure crisis” and, in a bow to Republican critics of the plan, said it would seek to replace the government money with “private investments as quickly as possible.”

Obama and the Bush administration had been negotiating for days on how and when to seek access to the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. His economic team also has been working with congressional Democrats, in particular House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Frank has introduced legislation that would require at least $40 billion of the money be used to reduce the number of foreclosures. His legislation also would set new conditions on institutions that receive the money, including limits on executive compensation. Frank’s committee is holding a hearing on the program on Tuesday and the House is scheduled to vote on his legislation this week.

“We should not allow our disappointment at the Bush administration’s poor handling of the TARP program to prevent the Obama administration from using the funds in more appropriate ways,” Frank said in a statement Monday.

But other lawmakers were hardly supportive.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio warned that it would be irresponsible to spend the money without a plan showing how the government would eventually extricate itself from underwriting the financial markets.

“I remain disappointed about the way TARP has been managed and how its resources have been spent over the last several months,” he said. He added: “I will oppose the release of these taxpayer funds when the matter is considered on the House floor.”

Even Democratic allies have been wary.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she told Obama Monday morning that she had been hesitant, but liked the changes he was proposing.

“I’m leaning in favor after speaking with him,” she said. “I mean I have to hear what he says.”

At his news conference Monday, Bush defended his handling of the first $350 billion.

“I readily concede I chucked aside some of my free market principles when I was told by chief economic advisers that the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression,” the president said.

But he credited the program so far with improving the credit environment, saying that “lending is just beginning to pick up.”

Congress approved the program in October, authorizing $700 billion to assist the financial industry.

The current administration has already committed the first $350 billion, using it to inject capital into banks with few strings attached and to bail out ailing financial companies considered too big to fail without further damage to the economy. A small portion of the money has gone to automakers General Motors Corp., and Chrysler LLC.

___

Associated Press Writers Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Erica Werner contributed to this report.